Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[crazy canuck]

Didn't read the links, did you? 

Changing your position so early on again...

I was responding to what you said which was...

The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all

Now you say they didnt publish information published by Wikileaks.  That might be so but it has nothing to do with the point you made that I responded to.  When you make up your mind what point you actualy want to make let me know.

In the meantime, yeah, I am not going to read through a bunch of links you put up to justify poor arguments.

[DGuller]

Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this?    If so, can you tell me who's losing less?

[The Brain]

My stool is quite runny.

[fhdz]

My stool is quite runny.

Would you say it leaks?

[crazy canuck]

Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this?    If so, can you tell me who's losing less?

More fool was I for trying to inform Grumbler about a basic misconception he was making.  It should be like the Fate rule.  Never attempt to teach Grumbles something.  Not only can that old dog not learn something new but he becomes very irratated at the suggestion he doesnt know.

[grumbler]

Changing your position so early on again... 

Reading, Motherfucker!  Can you do it?

I haven't changed my position in the slightest.  You just can't understand it, because you aren't reading what is actually being written.  Just like last time.

I was responding to what you said which was...

The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all

Now you say they didnt publish information published by Wikileaks. 

Reading, Motherfucker!  Can you do it?

The NYT published the same material Wikileaks did (only they did it first, along with four other newspapers).

How can you be republishing if you do it first?  Are you going to argue that this is just another "legal term of art" to try to weasel your way out of a losing position?

Jesus, man!  Read what I write, and stop claiming that I am saying things I never said!

In the meantime, yeah, I am not going to read through a bunch of links you put up to justify poor arguments.

Okay, then.  At least you now have conceded that mere evidence won't make you change your bogus position.  We are done.

[grumbler]

Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this?    If so, can you tell me who's losing less?

  Yeah, it is hard to have an interesting debate when someone keeps butting in with uniformed bullshit, and then announces that they are uninterested in the evidence.

My question remains:  is there any way to distinguish between wikileaks and the NYT as "journalists," other than for defamation purposes?

I am not sure we should, but the question has been raised, and I think it is an interesting one.

[grumbler]

My stool is quite runny.

Would you say it leaks?

Whose those be WikidLeaks?

[crazy canuck]

The NYT published the same material Wikileaks did (only they did it first, along with four other newspapers).

Interesting.  So now you contend that the NYT and four other newspapers obtained information independant of Wikileaks which Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully and then published it before Wikileaks.  How did they do that Grumbles? 

[grumbler]

Interesting.  So now you contend that the NYT and four other newspapers obtained information independant of Wikileaks which Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully and then published it before Wikileaks.  How did they do that Grumbles?

As you have noted, you are not going to read evidence.  There is no basis, then, for further discussion on the matter.  Learn to read, and then practice it by reading the links provided (or even Wikipedia, if the links use language too advanced for you).  This isn't rocket science, though non-native-English-speakers may find the vocabulary in the news articles too advanced.

And who is alleging that Wikileaks obtained the cables illegally? You know what you are saying when you say that "Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully," do you not?